ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Namrok, I will seriously find where you live and break your balls in front of your (seemingly delightful) girlfriend. Don't make her endure that, man.
Also, I've half a mind to beat you for not already owning Galactic Orders, but lets deal with one threat at a time here ...
Yeah but don't you want to play it with other people? I bet that'd be a lot of fun. Get them around the table with some beers and slap those cards down. That sounds super satisfying!
(I know I'm supposed to stop you but I feel guilty about my GMT order and this is my way of diffusing that guilt).
I still think we need a support group to help us resist impulse buys.
This month I managed to resist Funagain's spring cleaning sale. Then I managed to resist Miniature Markets spring cleaning sale. Then I managed to resist GMT's twitter sale.
This is a very, very rough month. My willpower is hanging in there by a thread.
I saw Le Havre for iOS was on sale for 99 cents. That should assuage my acquisition disorder for a while.
for that price, you should probably get it. I'm still getting into it, that upkeep part where you need to make sure you have enough food is a bitch and still not having the hang to make way around it.
Speaking of food, Agricola was submitted earlier this week to apple so we might get some Agricola iOS next week everything goes well. Been meaning to try this game for a while before commiting to the board game. That's part of the reason I love my ipad so much. It's a great and cheap way to try and learn games before knowing if it's worth commiting to the physical game. I've stop counting on the number of games I ended up trying on ios then went on to purchase their physical counter parts.
Looks like all Codito iOS boardgames are $.99 till Monday.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I read your post. But literally not a single scenario from the booklet of scenarios has any pockets behind the starting areas where deep space barren planets can hang out. So I'm confused.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I read your post. But literally not a single scenario from the booklet of scenarios has any pockets behind the starting areas where deep space barren planets can hang out. So I'm confused.
Look at layouts of home system tiles in the scenario book. For at least two of the players, there are always 2 tiles of deep space in their back yard in the corners. Remember that your home system tiles do not match up to those big colored lines on the game board!
If, by pure chance, you happen to get a barren world or two in one of those 2 deep space tiles in your corner you are set.
Beyond the problem with the corners, there are simply too many barren planets compared to the number of players. It is very easy for someone (especially with 3 players) to end up with a clump of them on their border a long distance from any opponents.
The way the entire game works is very favorable to defenders what with mines (and yes, we were using the errata on the increased cost of mines) and shorter supply lines to replace losses (probably via the trade corridors that boost movement too). Which means that having enough VPs to win in a favorable position right on your border makes your opponent(s) spend far more resources trying to take it than you have to spend keeping it.
Yeah I figured military was my only chance. If only I'd have gotten Pemaquid or Fort William Henry in my last hand I could have delayed a little more with a siege, had all my infantry.
I feel a bit dumb for not realizing before this game how powerful claiming both neutral settlers is for the British - I was like, why would I ever buy those for seven gold each, all my cards have settler symbols already. Turns out, denying them to the French is a great and super mean strategy.
All this tough chat and yet you won't face me again. No invitation, sad Tayrun...
I just got distracted, actually! I'll play another. Do you want to give the French side a try? I'm good either way.
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I read your post. But literally not a single scenario from the booklet of scenarios has any pockets behind the starting areas where deep space barren planets can hang out. So I'm confused.
Look at layouts of home system tiles in the scenario book. For at least two of the players, there are always 2 tiles of deep space in their back yard in the corners. Remember that your home system tiles do not match up to those big colored lines on the game board!
If, by pure chance, you happen to get a barren world or two in one of those 2 deep space tiles in your corner you are set.
Beyond the problem with the corners, there are simply too many barren planets compared to the number of players. It is very easy for someone (especially with 3 players) to end up with a clump of them on their border a long distance from any opponents.
The way the entire game works is very favorable to defenders what with mines (and yes, we were using the errata on the increased cost of mines) and shorter supply lines to replace losses (probably via the trade corridors that boost movement too). Which means that having enough VPs to win in a favorable position right on your border makes your opponent(s) spend far more resources trying to take it than you have to spend keeping it.
Ah, I see what you mean now. In the 3 player scenario, and only that scenario, there actually are 2 "deep space" tiles behind the player.
I think I'm still going to have to enthusiastically disagree. To me what you are saying is "In a wargame, if you sit back and don't attack, the other guy wins" which while true, sort of leaves me thinking "Why would you even...?"
I would note that the shorter scenario Namrok mentioned is, by the book, exceedingly poorly designed. There is simply too much space between the players and too many planets in it.
The game is about racing to see who can grab 3 planets near them first. There are more than enough to go around for everyone so there is no need to fight. And, based purely on the random distribution of where those planets turns out, one player can be handed a totally unopposable lead by having planets in their back yard. Or be handed an unwinnable condition just as easily.
The basic idea for the scenario works but it absolutely needs more incentive for conflict between players and some way to prevent the game from being decided by where you randomly place some tiles at the start.
I really don't think its nearly as bad as all that. One game I had almost none of my home system planets near me. So while my opponent was building colonies, I was building scouts and researching movement tech. I blitzed his system and kept at least 2 of his planets blockaded at all times. Even easily destroyed 2. He couldn't be everywhere at one, and I constantly outbid him on turn order and outran him with superior movement. All this harassment gave me all the time I needed to fully colonize my system, and mine all the juicy deep space asteroids. Despite him have the better setup, I still made the best of it and consistently out produced him.
What was the death of me was him rolling 8 1's in a row and wiping out my fleet in a highly improbably battle at my homeworld . Fucking dice every time.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I read your post. But literally not a single scenario from the booklet of scenarios has any pockets behind the starting areas where deep space barren planets can hang out. So I'm confused.
Look at layouts of home system tiles in the scenario book. For at least two of the players, there are always 2 tiles of deep space in their back yard in the corners. Remember that your home system tiles do not match up to those big colored lines on the game board!
If, by pure chance, you happen to get a barren world or two in one of those 2 deep space tiles in your corner you are set.
Beyond the problem with the corners, there are simply too many barren planets compared to the number of players. It is very easy for someone (especially with 3 players) to end up with a clump of them on their border a long distance from any opponents.
The way the entire game works is very favorable to defenders what with mines (and yes, we were using the errata on the increased cost of mines) and shorter supply lines to replace losses (probably via the trade corridors that boost movement too). Which means that having enough VPs to win in a favorable position right on your border makes your opponent(s) spend far more resources trying to take it than you have to spend keeping it.
Ah, I see what you mean now. In the 3 player scenario, and only that scenario, there actually are 2 "deep space" tiles behind the player.
I think I'm still going to have to enthusiastically disagree. To me what you are saying is "In a wargame, if you sit back and don't attack, the other guy wins" which while true, sort of leaves me thinking "Why would you even...?"
First, no I am not saying that at all. I am saying that, depending entirely on the random setup of tiles, one player can be in a position where they can sit back and not attack and win. And have an enormous advantage defending their predestined win to boot.
And, as you've been ignoring all along, besides the backyard tile problem there is also the issue of there just being too many barren planets. There are more than enough for everyone to grab their 3 VPs without ever interacting at all. Bad scenario design.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
Yeah I figured military was my only chance. If only I'd have gotten Pemaquid or Fort William Henry in my last hand I could have delayed a little more with a siege, had all my infantry.
I feel a bit dumb for not realizing before this game how powerful claiming both neutral settlers is for the British - I was like, why would I ever buy those for seven gold each, all my cards have settler symbols already. Turns out, denying them to the French is a great and super mean strategy.
All this tough chat and yet you won't face me again. No invitation, sad Tayrun...
I just got distracted, actually! I'll play another. Do you want to give the French side a try? I'm good either way.
Yeah I figured military was my only chance. If only I'd have gotten Pemaquid or Fort William Henry in my last hand I could have delayed a little more with a siege, had all my infantry.
I feel a bit dumb for not realizing before this game how powerful claiming both neutral settlers is for the British - I was like, why would I ever buy those for seven gold each, all my cards have settler symbols already. Turns out, denying them to the French is a great and super mean strategy.
All this tough chat and yet you won't face me again. No invitation, sad Tayrun...
I just got distracted, actually! I'll play another. Do you want to give the French side a try? I'm good either way.
Woot. Just got my order of Formula D and MoM: Call of the Wild. (Also Netrunner and Star Wars LCG packs)
Excited for Formula D, because I think my family will really enjoy it. And excited for Call of the Wild, because Mansions of Madness is amazing.
Do the expansions for Formula D offer anything more than new tracks?
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
No, but the new tracks are totally worth it. Some are much better than others, but it's been so long since I played FD, I don't remember which are the good ones.
I think that kind of happens with anyone that has played dominion long enough.
With any given set of cards there are only so many purchases worth making, especially early on. And the longer you play the more easily you can figure out what those purchases are.
I feel like the main big decision you make in dominion is when you switch from deck optimization to VP gaining.
I love it for spawning (or perhaps just popularizing) the deck building mechanic I adore, but there is not enough other meat on the bone, personally.
So, I just dropped a hundred bucks on two games + all expansions (King of tokoyo and Survive!). Now im sure my 'collection' of games isnt as large as some of you guys, but given the amount of money ive sunk into it so far, vs the amount of times my friends have actually played the games, I have to ask you lifers...Do you view the hobby as more of a collectors thing? Do you care much if you dont actually get a whole lot of actual use from the games you buy? I mean, sure, everyone wants to play the games they put money into, but a good bit of these games are the equivilent of glittery foil trading cards with all the neat little wooden pieces, neat artwork, and thoughtful gameplay. While i sometimes waffle on spending more money on new games that may not get much play, i dont really regret my purchases once i have them.
It's like a comic book you are sure your only going to read once, then stick in a growing pile of longboxes. Do....Do i have a problem??
Well, everytime i buy i game, i buy it with stars in my eyes that my group is going to love it and ill get to play it over and over and over. Sometimes this is not the case, so in practice, i am just collecting some of the games.
I went to the LGS to get a board game as a gift to a friend, and I ended up buying Survive. But I am weak, so even though I know I will be the first person he plays it with, I still bought a game for myself, which was Through the Desert. Man why did they choose those colors for the camels? They look terrible, and it is a shame since the pieces themselves are amazing.
Oh awesome, they are reprinting Ghost Stories' White moon expansion. Looking forward to failing to save villagers.
Didn't realize it was out of print! I highly, HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who likes Ghost Stories (and you should love Ghost Stories!)
Between adding the villagers and the crystals and the items and a couple new monster types you reach a sweet spot for a co-op game where there is such a large abundance of good things to do on any given turn that it becomes a real deliberation on what to do on your turn, and individual gut feelings can begin to hold sway.
A problem with a lot of co-op games is that once you have a good handle on the game, what should be done on any given turn becomes relatively clear. Pandemic suffers from this, for example, in my opinion. It becomes especially bad if the players are of uneven experience with the game, as the most experienced player can often see the optimal moves and just ends up running the turn of the less experienced players.
In Ghost Stories with White Moon, though, I feel like there are often many equally valid choices to make on any given turn, which makes for a great experience.
I went to the LGS to get a board game as a gift to a friend, and I ended up buying Survive. But I am weak, so even though I know I will be the first person he plays it with, I still bought a game for myself, which was Through the Desert. Man why did they choose those colors for the camels? They look terrible, and it is a shame since the pieces themselves are amazing.
My problem with TtD camels isn't that the look ugly as much as it is the fact that they look delicious. I cannot play that game without craving some Easter candy.
Oh awesome, they are reprinting Ghost Stories' White moon expansion. Looking forward to failing to save villagers.
Didn't realize it was out of print! I highly, HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who likes Ghost Stories (and you should love Ghost Stories!)
Between adding the villagers and the crystals and the items and a couple new monster types you reach a sweet spot for a co-op game where there is such a large abundance of good things to do on any given turn that it becomes a real deliberation on what to do on your turn, and individual gut feelings can begin to hold sway.
A problem with a lot of co-op games is that once you have a good handle on the game, what should be done on any given turn becomes relatively clear. Pandemic suffers from this, for example, in my opinion. It becomes especially bad if the players are of uneven experience with the game, as the most experienced player can often see the optimal moves and just ends up running the turn of the less experienced players.
In Ghost Stories with White Moon, though, I feel like there are often many equally valid choices to make on any given turn, which makes for a great experience.
Yeah, i love GS because it always feels like you have options, and the game doesn't play itself. The design seems really tight, and it feels incredible when you win. Also i love the artwork. Easily my favorite co-op game.
So, I just dropped a hundred bucks on two games + all expansions (King of tokoyo and Survive!). Now im sure my 'collection' of games isnt as large as some of you guys, but given the amount of money ive sunk into it so far, vs the amount of times my friends have actually played the games, I have to ask you lifers...Do you view the hobby as more of a collectors thing? Do you care much if you dont actually get a whole lot of actual use from the games you buy? I mean, sure, everyone wants to play the games they put money into, but a good bit of these games are the equivilent of glittery foil trading cards with all the neat little wooden pieces, neat artwork, and thoughtful gameplay. While i sometimes waffle on spending more money on new games that may not get much play, i dont really regret my purchases once i have them.
It's like a comic book you are sure your only going to read once, then stick in a growing pile of longboxes. Do....Do i have a problem??
You know, that's partially why I I've found it so easy to resist board game purchases as of late. What's the point in getting San Juan when I already own and love Race for the Galaxy...and never play it. Why bother getting Banners of War for Runewars, when I haven't been able to get it to the table in almost 2 years? I wanted 1989 in the GMT sale...but I've still only played Twilight Struggle a handful of times and desperately need to get it to the table more before I get a similar game.
Luckily I've been able to get games played more often now that I've been going to my FLGS. But I'm still struggling with members of my gaming group moving away on me.
I went to the LGS to get a board game as a gift to a friend, and I ended up buying Survive. But I am weak, so even though I know I will be the first person he plays it with, I still bought a game for myself, which was Through the Desert. Man why did they choose those colors for the camels? They look terrible, and it is a shame since the pieces themselves are amazing.
My problem with TtD camels isn't that the look ugly as much as it is the fact that they look delicious. I cannot play that game without craving some Easter candy.
Haha! I'm not sure any danish candy looks like that, but I can kinda see what you mean :P
3DS - 2878-9572-9277
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
So, I just dropped a hundred bucks on two games + all expansions (King of tokoyo and Survive!). Now im sure my 'collection' of games isnt as large as some of you guys, but given the amount of money ive sunk into it so far, vs the amount of times my friends have actually played the games, I have to ask you lifers...Do you view the hobby as more of a collectors thing? Do you care much if you dont actually get a whole lot of actual use from the games you buy? I mean, sure, everyone wants to play the games they put money into, but a good bit of these games are the equivilent of glittery foil trading cards with all the neat little wooden pieces, neat artwork, and thoughtful gameplay. While i sometimes waffle on spending more money on new games that may not get much play, i dont really regret my purchases once i have them.
It's like a comic book you are sure your only going to read once, then stick in a growing pile of longboxes. Do....Do i have a problem??
I always buy games with the intent to play them, and if the game is not an all-day epic I usually make a point to bring that to the table the next time I get it gamed. If I don't like, oh well, maybe I can sell it. If I do like, then it stays. Even if something only has one or two plays, it wills sit around, waiting for another opportunity. I don't give up on games.
That being said, I have something like 100 games and at least a dozen of them are unplayed. I will play them, but yeah it can be hard for me to resist a purchase when at a game store.
EDIT: To answer your main question of caring about unplayed games; yes, I do care if they're unattended, and I definitely want them to hit the table more often if they're any good.
I went to the LGS to get a board game as a gift to a friend, and I ended up buying Survive. But I am weak, so even though I know I will be the first person he plays it with, I still bought a game for myself, which was Through the Desert. Man why did they choose those colors for the camels? They look terrible, and it is a shame since the pieces themselves are amazing.
My problem with TtD camels isn't that the look ugly as much as it is the fact that they look delicious. I cannot play that game without craving some Easter candy.
Haha! I'm not sure any danish candy looks like that, but I can kinda see what you mean :P
They are the exact same colors as the seasonal stuff that shows up here every Spring:
They even kind of feel like Sweettarts, although that probably says more about Sweettarts than the plastic game pieces.
So, I just dropped a hundred bucks on two games + all expansions (King of tokoyo and Survive!). Now im sure my 'collection' of games isnt as large as some of you guys, but given the amount of money ive sunk into it so far, vs the amount of times my friends have actually played the games, I have to ask you lifers...Do you view the hobby as more of a collectors thing? Do you care much if you dont actually get a whole lot of actual use from the games you buy? I mean, sure, everyone wants to play the games they put money into, but a good bit of these games are the equivilent of glittery foil trading cards with all the neat little wooden pieces, neat artwork, and thoughtful gameplay. While i sometimes waffle on spending more money on new games that may not get much play, i dont really regret my purchases once i have them.
It's like a comic book you are sure your only going to read once, then stick in a growing pile of longboxes. Do....Do i have a problem??
I'm fortunate enough to have young kids who love to play and a wife that will play most games. So I'm officially in the hobby category but sometimes it does feel like I'm getting a collection and I get the "completionnist bug" of buying all expansion even some that aren't great or get rarely played.
Posts
Also, I've half a mind to beat you for not already owning Galactic Orders, but lets deal with one threat at a time here ...
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
My FLGS doesn't have it in stock and doesn't seem to want to order it either and I can't do a big online order on account of saving for a house.
But you are supposed to be talking me out of ordering stuff!
I'm going to tell myself I already have it on the iPad so I don't need a physical copy.
(I know I'm supposed to stop you but I feel guilty about my GMT order and this is my way of diffusing that guilt).
Looks like all Codito iOS boardgames are $.99 till Monday.
No idea, but its $.99. I just bought it to try it out since I didn't have that one either.
It's not about where your home system planets are. Everyone has the name number of those and they are within a fixed area. That's fine. Also, home system planets aren't worth VPs.
The problem with the scenario is the random distribution and the total number of planets outside the home areas. The planets that are actually worth VPs. As I said above, the two problems are:
1) too many VP planets means there is no incentive to conflict. Everyone can just build up in their corner until the game ends.
2) random distribution of VP planets means that one player can be handed victory through the initial setup alone. If you get a VP planet in one of those couple of non-home tiles that are in the corner "behind" your starting area you pretty much can't lose this scenario.
I'm still not sure I follow. The deep space planets have aliens guarding them, plus they are barren. That means at a minimum 3 economic phases. 1 for to research teraforming and plant your flag. Then 2 more for that colony to develop up. To say nothing of building up a force that can actually fight off the native aliens. Nor the turns it takes to get your 1 movement colony ship to said planet. Plus all this is resources that other people will just be using to blow you up! At a bare minimum I'd say you could colonize a deep space planet by turn 5. But by turn 5 it's not uncommon for me to have destroyed two targets of opportunity in other people's home sector. Also, I don't understand the existence of these "corner pockets behind your start" you mentioned. I see no such thing on any of the scenarios? Which scenario did you play? I feel like you are writing a game off as being "bullshit random" without investing the time into thinking of counter strategies.
Read. My. Fucking. Posts.
First off, I never said the game had this problem but the specific scenario in question.
For the rest, I have very clearly stated the problem with that specific scenario. The one where it is a race to 3 VPs and you get VPs for having a max level colony on a planet outside your starting zone.
I read your post. But literally not a single scenario from the booklet of scenarios has any pockets behind the starting areas where deep space barren planets can hang out. So I'm confused.
links to the official rulebook, map board image and scenario book are here: http://www.gmtgames.com/p-317-space-empires.aspx
Look at layouts of home system tiles in the scenario book. For at least two of the players, there are always 2 tiles of deep space in their back yard in the corners. Remember that your home system tiles do not match up to those big colored lines on the game board!
If, by pure chance, you happen to get a barren world or two in one of those 2 deep space tiles in your corner you are set.
Beyond the problem with the corners, there are simply too many barren planets compared to the number of players. It is very easy for someone (especially with 3 players) to end up with a clump of them on their border a long distance from any opponents.
The way the entire game works is very favorable to defenders what with mines (and yes, we were using the errata on the increased cost of mines) and shorter supply lines to replace losses (probably via the trade corridors that boost movement too). Which means that having enough VPs to win in a favorable position right on your border makes your opponent(s) spend far more resources trying to take it than you have to spend keeping it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0oOD9U9VQ5Y
Eh, why not? The French side is just fine, especially at our level of play.
Ah, I see what you mean now. In the 3 player scenario, and only that scenario, there actually are 2 "deep space" tiles behind the player.
I think I'm still going to have to enthusiastically disagree. To me what you are saying is "In a wargame, if you sit back and don't attack, the other guy wins" which while true, sort of leaves me thinking "Why would you even...?"
First, no I am not saying that at all. I am saying that, depending entirely on the random setup of tiles, one player can be in a position where they can sit back and not attack and win. And have an enormous advantage defending their predestined win to boot.
And, as you've been ignoring all along, besides the backyard tile problem there is also the issue of there just being too many barren planets. There are more than enough for everyone to grab their 3 VPs without ever interacting at all. Bad scenario design.
Probably just that we've played about a billion games with Tayrun as the British and me as the French and he's only won the most recent one.
But I felt like this when I did:
And (more likely) when you muck up a plan you feel like the biggest idiot ever.
Excited for Formula D, because I think my family will really enjoy it. And excited for Call of the Wild, because Mansions of Madness is amazing.
Do the expansions for Formula D offer anything more than new tracks?
First turn: "Oh, you bought that card. Well, if you're sure about it...."
Second turn: "Huh. Given what the rest of the table did, you're probably okay."
With any given set of cards there are only so many purchases worth making, especially early on. And the longer you play the more easily you can figure out what those purchases are.
I feel like the main big decision you make in dominion is when you switch from deck optimization to VP gaining.
I love it for spawning (or perhaps just popularizing) the deck building mechanic I adore, but there is not enough other meat on the bone, personally.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
It's like a comic book you are sure your only going to read once, then stick in a growing pile of longboxes. Do....Do i have a problem??
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Didn't realize it was out of print! I highly, HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who likes Ghost Stories (and you should love Ghost Stories!)
Between adding the villagers and the crystals and the items and a couple new monster types you reach a sweet spot for a co-op game where there is such a large abundance of good things to do on any given turn that it becomes a real deliberation on what to do on your turn, and individual gut feelings can begin to hold sway.
A problem with a lot of co-op games is that once you have a good handle on the game, what should be done on any given turn becomes relatively clear. Pandemic suffers from this, for example, in my opinion. It becomes especially bad if the players are of uneven experience with the game, as the most experienced player can often see the optimal moves and just ends up running the turn of the less experienced players.
In Ghost Stories with White Moon, though, I feel like there are often many equally valid choices to make on any given turn, which makes for a great experience.
My problem with TtD camels isn't that the look ugly as much as it is the fact that they look delicious. I cannot play that game without craving some Easter candy.
Yeah, i love GS because it always feels like you have options, and the game doesn't play itself. The design seems really tight, and it feels incredible when you win. Also i love the artwork. Easily my favorite co-op game.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
You know, that's partially why I I've found it so easy to resist board game purchases as of late. What's the point in getting San Juan when I already own and love Race for the Galaxy...and never play it. Why bother getting Banners of War for Runewars, when I haven't been able to get it to the table in almost 2 years? I wanted 1989 in the GMT sale...but I've still only played Twilight Struggle a handful of times and desperately need to get it to the table more before I get a similar game.
Luckily I've been able to get games played more often now that I've been going to my FLGS. But I'm still struggling with members of my gaming group moving away on me.
Haha! I'm not sure any danish candy looks like that, but I can kinda see what you mean :P
I always buy games with the intent to play them, and if the game is not an all-day epic I usually make a point to bring that to the table the next time I get it gamed. If I don't like, oh well, maybe I can sell it. If I do like, then it stays. Even if something only has one or two plays, it wills sit around, waiting for another opportunity. I don't give up on games.
That being said, I have something like 100 games and at least a dozen of them are unplayed. I will play them, but yeah it can be hard for me to resist a purchase when at a game store.
EDIT: To answer your main question of caring about unplayed games; yes, I do care if they're unattended, and I definitely want them to hit the table more often if they're any good.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
They are the exact same colors as the seasonal stuff that shows up here every Spring:
They even kind of feel like Sweettarts, although that probably says more about Sweettarts than the plastic game pieces.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
I'm fortunate enough to have young kids who love to play and a wife that will play most games. So I'm officially in the hobby category but sometimes it does feel like I'm getting a collection and I get the "completionnist bug" of buying all expansion even some that aren't great or get rarely played.
PSN: Guibs25 | XboxLive: Guibs | Steam: Guibsx | Twitch: Guibsx